Crucial information absent from process in re-zoning debate, vote

On Jan. 12, Collin Gallant wrote an editorial about rezoning applications. After reviewing a number of rezoning decisions he concluded that city council has been inconsistent in their decision-making and that this unpredictability was bad. I disagree with his conclusion. With each rezoning application council must weigh opposing goods. The high level guidance from neighbourhood specific development plans must be balanced against the economic development from new homes or businesses. But council is political and thus also values community input. The interplay of these factors influences the outcome. The cases cited by Mr. Gallant may seem inconsistent, but that’s because each case is unique. Which is not to say council has been perfect.

One of the applications cited by Mr. Gallant was Land Use Bylaw 4367 and the case is thought provoking. When Gordon Law Office appeared before council on July 4, 2016, I was impressed by their perseverance. By my count this was the third time the owner of 322 Fourth St. S.W. had appeared to persuade council to allow Gordon Law Office to convert this residential home into a business. Gordon Law Office had applied to the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) that oversees these applications. The Herald Neighbourhood Plan (HNP) was brand new and had explicitly zoned this property for residential use only after a comprehensive study. Thus Planning Services rejected the application. But after hearing the law office the MPC overrode staff and approved the application. Now the law office was before council for final approval.

Gordon Law Office came prepared. They reasoned correctly that council should view the HNP not as a rigid plan. They argued correctly that it was council’s prerogative to weigh the merits of individual cases. They argued that this type of business would have a minimal impact on the neighbourhood. The character of the house would be maintained and actually improved. Traffic to the business would be minimal. They also argued that because the house sits awkwardly on Gershaw Drive in a kind of no man’s land on a busy intersection it was ill suited for a residential home.

Sitting in the gallery I was convinced. I was familiar with the intersection on Gershaw Drive and agreed on all points. Against the application was a sole voice; a private citizen from the neighbourhood. She argued that the character of the neighbourhood would be eroded by the expansion of commercial areas into residential ones.

Council’s deliberation centered on how to reconcile the guidelines of the development plan with this application. The application passed with a lone dissenter, Coun. Dumanowski. But no one articulated why city staff had rejected this application – that’s the key bit of information missing here. Even Dumanowski only cited the plan’s incompatibility in his dissent, but not the reasons ‘why’. (You can watch the entire exchange on YouTube.)

The reasons are two fold. First policy 5 (C) on page 30 of the HNP – “The neighbourhood commercial districts shall not be expanded beyond their identified area to maintain the viability of the downtown and reduce the impact on residential areas.” From the viewpoint of this development policy council’s decision to approve the application was a lose-lose. Downtown was weakened by the loss of this (formerly located downtown) business and the residential area in Herald was weakened by the expansion of commercial areas.

Second, a rendering on page 29 of the HNP offered a redevelopment option to the intersection in question on Gershaw Drive. This rendering isn’t a definite plan, but it signals that Planning Services recognized the problems of the intersection and thought about ways to improve it. In the drawing the property no longer sits awkwardly, but is now insulated from the busy intersection by a walking path and the closure of Gershaw Drive access from Fourth Street.

During deliberations council asked the private citizen why she was against this application since she lived blocks away. Basically asking her why she cared since it wouldn’t directly affect her. That was an unfair question. It’s true that had there been more people against the application council may have been swayed. But here was a citizen coming to defend her neighbourhood. A better question is why did it fall to a single private citizen to articulate the defense for the city’s own brand new plan?

The strength of the democratic system is that the rationale for government decisions must be made in public. Hence the public can understand the ‘why’. In this case crucial information was absent from council’s deliberative process impoverishing the public’s understanding. Sure council might have still approved this application, but the application wasn’t the slam dunk it appeared to be.

@KrisSamraj is a writer. He's going to favour us with some words from time to time.